True or False: Corrective Justice is the Most Important Form of Justice
opinionated Essay
867 words
Essentially, “justice is the quality of being impartial, fair, and just” (Pollsky, 2012, p.53). Furthermore, the act of being just is derived from the latin word “jus” which translates to matters involving laws or rules (Pollsky, 2012, p.53). There are three types of justice and they each differ in matters of circumstance: firstly, distributive justice attempts to provide equality for each individual; corrective justice attempts to reverse an unfair advantage, provide a remedy to the problem, and show equality within the population; lastly, reciprocal justice provides the notion of equality amongst freely exchanged goods amongst individuals. According to Aristotle, distributive justice incorporates the allocation of resources amongst society(Aristotle, trans W.d Ross, 1994). These resources can include education, profession, honor, status, money, or property (Pollsky, 2012, p. 54). There are a variety of theories that describe various methods of carrying out distributive justice including ideas of need, merit, and entitlement. These ideas work in order to bring the goal of justice which is equality and fairness within society. However, the reason that this is not the most important form of justice is that it is too narrow in scope. A quick look in history can provide many examples of unfair and unjust treatment with distributive ideals. Even today, in our own country, we can see many perceived flaws with this type of justice. Occupy Wall Street started as a protest movement that sought to provide equality in pay for all citizens not just those fortunate enough to be born or rose to the one-percent. The common adage that is used very frequently is “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”. This very well could be perceived as... ... middle of paper ... ... time is worth the payment he can up and leave without fear of any punishment. In conclusion, if the most important function of the three types of justice is to uphold justice then corrective justice is the most important. It seeks to right the wrongs and to end unfair advantages. In regards to the distributive form of justice, it does not seek to spread equality; equality is derived from it. Corrective Justice provides fairness and impartiality even to those who are unfair, bias, and unjust. It seeks to find the fairest solution. In comparison with Reciprocal justice, it is not dependent on vis-à-vis contractual agreements in which equality is perceived by the individual in a trade based system; its basis of equality is inherent and rooted in its foundation. Thus, amongst the three forms of justice, I believe, that corrective justice stands to be the most important.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that justice is the quality of being impartial, fair, and just, derived from the latin word "jus" which translates to matters involving laws or rules.
- Explains that distributive justice incorporates the allocation of resources amongst society, including education, profession, honor, status, money, or property.
- Argues that the distributive form of justice is a mecca of dissent with hopes of only altering the status quo so that there is uniform sense of fairness.
- Opines that fairness and unfairness straddle a very legal oriented line.
- Opines that corrective justice is the most important form of justice, as it strives to be fair, impartial, and just.
- Explains that reciprocal justice demonstrates the equality that individual have when they exchange goods with a contractual agreement.
- Concludes that corrective justice is the most important of the three forms of justice. it seeks to right the wrongs and end unfair advantages.
Related
- analytical
- Rawls And The Principles Of Justiceanalytical essayI. As one of the interpretations of the second principle of justice as fairness, Rawls argues that “democratic equality” is the best avenue for citizens to realize their life projects, as meeting of the difference principle with fair equality of opportunity. The second principle states that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls, 53). With an unequal distribution of situations, the purpose of society “is not to establish and secure the more attractive prospects of those better off unless doing so is to the advantage of those less fortunate” (Rawls, 65). The principles of justice are in place to ensure that the “assignment of rights and duties” through the basic structure of society justly distribute both the “benefits and burdens” of social and economic advantages (Rawls, 47).
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes rawls' interpretation of the second principle of justice as fairness, stating that democratic equality is the best avenue for citizens to realize their life projects.
- Argues that the difference principle is compatible with the principle of efficiency, and inequalities in wealth and income can be justified if all parties benefit.
- Explains that the difference principle is satisfied, and that a distribution may benefit those least well off, but if it does not have offices, those individuals are deprived of their skills and devoted exercise of social duties.
- Argues that rawls' distribution of social and natural primary goods is morally arbitrary and results in placement in either better endowed position or not.
- Explains that redress differs from rawls' difference principle, which mandates that society should account for the natural shortcomings of individuals in less favorable social positions.
- Compares the principles of allocative justice and welfare, which are concerned with a utilitarian viewpoint.
- Explains that the difference principle and the principle of fair equality of opportunity find support in rawls' process of reflective equilibrium.
- Analyzes how nozick's perceptions of justice violate the rights of individuals by treating them solely as resources in the completion of others' life projects.
- Argues that the difference principle violates the rights of the better-endowed by preventing them from exploring their natural talents.
- Analyzes nozick's entitlement theory of justice, which states that a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution.
- Analyzes nozick's argument of a model of utopia, designed to "let you choose what you will, with the sole constraint being that others may do the same for themselves."
- Analyzes rawls' critique of nozick's utopian framework, arguing that individuals are inclined to peacefully coexist in order to pursue their interpretation of the good.
- Opines that rawl's principle of redistribution towards the least well off is beyond addressing the situation of burdened individuals.
2175 wordsRead More - The Growth of Wealth Inequalityanalytical essayThe first view is procedural justice, the process by which individuals gain their wealth. Procedural justice is a non-consequentialist argument focusing on the grounds that if individuals of a society attained their wealth fairly, then there is nothing unjust about an uneven distribution of wealth in a ...
In this essay, the author
- Explains that the gap between the rich and the poor in the united states has increased over the years, illustrating the wealth inequality between social classes in our nation.
- Explains that wealth inequality relates to race, gender, and access to health care. justice, efficiency and liberty are the primary moral values when discussing economics and ethics.
- Explains that procedural justice is a non-consequentialist argument focusing on the grounds that if individuals in society attained their wealth fairly, then there is nothing unjust about an uneven distribution of wealth.
- Explains that robert nozick, author of "anarchy, state and utopia," is a firm believer in procedural justice, and the individual's right to keep and own ones property.
- Explains that nozick's entitlement theory stresses importance on an individual’s right to keep the wealth that they have earned. this view does not recognize the need for many basic rights and freedoms for all citizens.
- Analyzes how nozick raises questions about historical injustices, and concludes that there is no proper way of remedying past injustice without causing more harm.
- Explains the second view of distributive justice, which focuses on the result of distribution in a society or the end state of the distribution.
- Compares rawls' "a theory of justice" to nozick's entitlement theory, which explains that people would accept unequal wealth if certain conditions were met.
- Explains rawls' principle of how society should be structured based on a hypothetical theory of society.
- Explains the equal opportunity principle, which demonstrates the importance of giving benefits to those who are disadvantaged and providing "fair equality of opportunity." rawls views on economic and social justice provide a more just system than the ideas of nozick.
- Analyzes how nozick maximizes individual liberties, but he excludes restrictions that rawls’s second principle describes.
1112 wordsRead More - Retributive And Restorative Justiceanalytical essayPersuasive Essay: The Implications of Retributive and Restorative Justice When the general public is asked about defining a concept of justice, most tend to settle on the idea of fairness. However, what fairness means to one may be inconceivable to another; it is subjective. Within scholarly circles, there are two dichotomies of justice that are discussed: retributive justice and restorative justice. Retributive justice centers on a sense of just desserts, of punishment against the offender to fix the wrong that they have committed. On the other hand, restorative justice emphasizes mediation and understanding between the victim and the offender.
In this essay, the author
- Argues that retributive justice centers on just desserts, while restorative justice emphasizes mediation and understanding between the victim and the offender.
- Explains the distinction between retribution and restorative justice. retributive justice emphasizes the proportionality of an offense.
- Explains that most people don't view offenders as enemies, but current criminal justice literature frames the debate of dealing with them in oppositional terms.
- Analyzes how the rhetorical nature of the war on drugs frames even a social/medical issue in oppositional terms.
- Opines that the department of justice should release documents that explain the political nature and collective understanding of justice in america.
- Argues that true justice encompasses both punishment-centered and rehabilitation-focused ideas. a more honest approach toward policy should be examined and discussed by the department of justice.
992 wordsRead More - Procedural And Distributive Justice Essayanalytical essayThere are four main theories of justice retributive, utilitarian, restorative, and parallel justice. All four theories have different ways of interpreting both procedural and distributive justice. Procedure justice according to Newmark, L. (2017) is the “the process used to determine society’s response to a crime; the steps taken to arrive at an outcome; how society decides what it should do about a crime”. Distributive justice on the other hand has to do with the consequences that one receives from the justice system. The definition of distributive justice is society’s response to the crime; the consequences that society provides for the crime; what society does about a crime; the outcomes resulting from the process” (Newmark, L. 2017). Each theory has a different opinion of how procedural and distributive justice work in the system, but they both apply procedural and distributive justice within the theories. Another similarity can be found between retributive and utilitarian justice, both of these theories of justice are only offender-focused theories. Restorative and parallel justices also have a commonality in the fact that they include victim focused and offender focused justice.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that retributive justice follows a social contact through criminal laws put into place by the governing party. julio miguel blanco-garcia committed this murder despite his agreement with the social order in virginia.
- Argues that the next step for garcia in the retributive justice theory would be to have a fair process of justice.
- Explains that after guilt or innocence phase, the consequences of the offender would be determined by the society, including the government and citizens.
- Explains that there are four main theories of justice: retributive, utilitarian, restorative, and parallel justice.
703 wordsRead More - Rawls Principles Of Justice Essayanalytical essayJustice is seen as a concept that is balanced between law and morality. The laws that support social harmony are considered just. Rawls states that justice is the first virtue of social institutions; this means that a good society is one structured according to principles of justice. The significance of principles of justice is to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of the society and defining the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of the society. According to Rawls, justice is best understood by a grasp of the principles of justice (Rawls, 1971). The principles are expected to represent the moral basis of political government. These principles indicate that humankind needs liberty and freedom so long as they do harm others. Rawls states that justice is significant to human development and prosperity.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that justice is a concept that is balanced between law and morality. rawls states that good society is one structured according to principles of justice.
- Explains rawls's view that justice is to ensure a just distribution of primary goods, including powers and opportunities, rights and liberties, means of self-respect, income and wealth. the utilitarianism theory ignores the moral worth of an individual.
- Analyzes rawls' concept of the original position, which gives people the chance to decide on the principles of justice from a veil of ignorance.
- Explains that individuals behind the veil of ignorance are specified as rational, free and morally equal beings in the society. ignorance to the details about oneself will eventually lead to schemes of justice that are fair to all.
- Explains rawls's difference principle, which allows inequalities in the distribution of goods when the stated inequality benefits the least well off members of the society.
- Explains that the principle is rational to those in the original position because each member has an equal claim on their society's goods.
- Argues that economic and social inequalities should be set in a way that they are both rationally projected to be everyone’s advantage and attached to positions that are open to all people in the society. rawls suggests three general principles of justice.
- Explains that the principle of fair equality of wealth and opportunity must be protected to guarantee the development and prosperity of individuals.
- Explains that social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least privileged individuals in the society.
- Explains that the principles of justice can also be achieved through a constitutional democracy. rawls suggests that equal rights of participation in the political process should be constitutionally guaranteed.
- Opines that rawls' theory of justice has several weaknesses.
- Argues that rawls' original position does not address individuals who have families or the special concerns of women in the family. the use of the ambiguous "he" undermines his theory of justice.
- Concludes that rawls's general outlook is positive and therefore can be accepted overall. the theory of justice as fairness is deontological and not a teleological theory.
1396 wordsRead More - Justice In Rawlsian Justiceanalytical essayJustice, a concept that has been argued since the beginning of history, but what is justice. This idea has changed throughout time, whether that be an eye for an eye, leave no debt unpaid, or modern times, in which sentences are handed out in response to how horrific the crime was. Justice has forever been changing, and has taken many definitions, but John Rawls came to know it as this idea of fairness. This idea of fairness is center around an idea of cooperation and through this cooperation, which he further explains as, “Indeed a central element of the terms of cooperation is what Rawls terms “reciprocity”, involving evaluations of benefits and respect to publicly affirmed benchmark of “equality” (Bradford 614). Thus, the debate of whether
In this essay, the author
- Explains that justice has been argued since the beginning of history, but what is justice? rawls came to know it as this idea of fairness.
- Analyzes why rawlsian justice doesn't work with neoclassical economics, arguing that everyone benefits from the share cooperation not just a few.
- Analyzes how the neoclassical school of thought's social vision is based on the idea that it will be impossible to satisfy everyone’s individual demand due to a finite amount of resources.
- Explains that the institutionalism school of thought believes the market is a social institution and needs to be regulated by the government.
- Analyzes rawls' argument that fairness is necessary throughout society in order for cooperation to occur, and achieve mutual desires.
- Concludes that bradford was correct in his statement that the neoclassical school does not support the same social views as rawls' theory of justice and as such are not compatible.
1068 wordsRead More - The Relationship Between Justice and the Goodanalytical essayThe relationship between justice and the good is and has been debated for thousands of years between many intelligent philosophers. Many theorists have attempted to to explain the exact characteristics and outline a moral distribution of possessions. From just after the First World War to present day, liberal perspectives emerged and flourished across a variety of ideological theories and continue to influence political thinking in regards to rights, equality and freedom. With this emergence came two very influential theorists in libertarian political philosophy, Robert Nozick and John Rawls, who take very different approaches to how justice relates to the good. Both Nozick and Rawls argue for liberty above equality, and that there is some degree of equality necessary within a society, however approach it from very different angles.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how rawls' theory of distributive justice introduces the "original position" associated with the reflective equilibrium, where individuals reflect and revise their beliefs to discuss what is moral.
- Explains that nozick provides a third alternative to which justice can be given under minimal state involvement, known as the "entitlement theory".
- Analyzes how nozick portrays the "entitlement theory" to show how to respect an individual's natural rights to property and self ownership.
- Compares entitlement theory and rawls' views on property rights, stating that natural talents can determine unjust inequalities in the ownership of property.
- Analyzes rawls' theory on distributive justice, arguing that people do not deserve natural assets. nozick examines this idea through his "entitlement theory."
- Concludes that nozick's historical entitlement theory has great initial credibility and offers an appealing argument of the acquisition of justly held goods, through his principles of acquisition, transfer and rectification.
- Compares the views of robert nozick and john rawls on the relationship between justice and the good.
- Analyzes rawls' two principles of justice: the equal liberty principle and the principle that social and economic inequalities should be best developed to benefit the least advantaged.
- Explains rawls, john, and nozick, robert, in applied social and political philosophy.
1558 wordsRead More - Analysis Of Iris Young's Justice And The Politics Of Differenceanalytical essayTo Young, economic justice is not just about who has money because “economic domination derives at least as much from the corporate and legal structures and procedures that give some persons the power to make decisions about investment, production, marketing, employment, interest rates, and wages that affect millions of other people” (Young 23). In the distributive paradigm, as Young conceives of it, there is no mechanism for examining the justice of an arrangement that concentrates decision making power in the hands of a select few unless that power is used to create distributive injustices of some other
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes iris young's critique of the distributive paradigm in her 1990 book, justice and the politics of difference.
- Analyzes how young divides her criticism of the distributive paradigm into two main points: (i) that it tends to ignore, at the same time as it often presupposes, the institutional context that determines material distributions.
- Explains that young is interested in exploring the myriad, subtle ways that the focus on distribution shapes the way theorists understand, think about, discuss, or otherwise engage with social justice.
- Analyzes how young's critique of the distributive paradigm is that it ignores and presupposes the institutional context that determines material distributions.
- Argues that economic justice is not just about who has money because economic domination derives from corporate and legal structures and procedures that give some persons the power to make decisions about investment, production, marketing, employment, interest rates, and wages that affect millions of other people.
- Opines that the distributive paradigm could address the issue she is talking about in terms of the unjust distribution of power or of prerogatives of office.
- Opines that the maximin principle is inherently distributive in that it deals directly with the allocation of wealth and esteem in society as they relate to establishing positions of relative advantage.
- Opines that the second nondistributive issue young claims the distributive paradigm fails to address is the division of labor.
- Explains that the state is agnostic toward individuals’ conceptions of the good in liberal political theory. to place the social valuation of different tasks within the domain of justice would compromise the liberty of conscious.
- Opines that the distributive paradigm does little to address injustice against culture. liberal theorists justify cultural preservation in terms of non-distributable (even inalienable) rights.
1176 wordsRead More - Justice in Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedienceanalytical essayBy definition justice means the quality of being just or fair. The issue then stands, is justice fair for everyone? Justice is the administration of law, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments, "justice deferred is justice denied.” The terms of Justice is brought up in Henry David Thoreau’s writing, “Civil Disobedience.”
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes thoreau's civil disobedience, which ties in morality with justice, and abolitionist, who sought justice for minorities.
- Analyzes thoreau's view that the government was insufficient. he used his conscious and morality to do what morally was right, rather than based on government-issued laws.
- Analyzes how thoreau's "civil disobedience" essay is a resounding no. he opposes the war with mexico in 1847, like jane fonda opposed the vietnam war.
- Analyzes how thoreau's moral stance is in direct conflict with his government, his system of justice, and the laws put in place that he is required to follow.
- Analyzes thoreau's view that justice is greatly compromised by a system in which the majority rules.
- Analyzes how thoreau's decision to leave the right to the majority compromises the end result to a feeble stab at justice.
- Opines that thoreau does not condone the government and its legislators nor does he believe that this democracy emulates justice. he believes that fairness exists in the hearts and minds of individuals.
- Analyzes thoreau's view that the government was insufficient, yet it provided guidelines. justice cannot be fully defined in one sentence by every person.
934 wordsRead More - Capitalism Theories and Their Role in US Governmentanalytical essayThroughout the years in the US, there has been a lot of controversy on how the government should be running; therefore, theories have been established by certain scholars to answer the commotion of distributive justice. Distributive justice plays a big role in each theory because it is something that affects everyone in this nation. Distributive justice is the concept that determines where the allocation of goods in a society goes. Well-known scholars such as Locke, Mill, Nozick, Rawls, and Marx have created ideas that impact the way certain societies run in the US.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that distributive justice is the concept that determines where the allocation of goods in a society goes.
- Analyzes the property of the earth in relation to god and his sons in locke's book second treatise.
- Argues that libertarianism is the most commonly used in the us because of its’ similarity to capitalism.
- Explains that utilitarianism, marxism, and "justice as fairness" disagree with capitalism.
- Opines that libertarianism is the only theory that is true to capitalism, and that it resembles the republican party in the us.
1057 wordsRead More